How Dare You Not Defer To My Lack Of Self-Possession
People often don’t like the words I say or write because they don’t like the way I say or write them. They don’t like the emotion, intention, passion, and words I use to emphasise all of the above.
In the pages of Scary Mommy, Ms Amber Leventry, a “queer person and educator,” is telling us how it is:
When folks become uncomfortable, they focus on the tone of the words being said and label it as unprofessional, angry, off-putting, or inappropriate. Rather than actually hearing what I’m saying, they try to avoid accountability or problem-solving by advising me to be more approachable or calm. This is tone policing, and it happens most often to marginalised groups and women — especially Black women — and it happens everywhere. It’s bullshit.
At risk of being difficult – and making claims of “bullshit” seem a tad premature – other possibilities come to mind. It is, for instance, generally easier to process calm speech and to formulate a meaningful response. Dealing with agitation and temper isn’t often conducive to mutual understanding, and it’s hard not to be defensive when someone is shouting and swearing at you. Needless to say, fits of vehemence and impatience aren’t the most obvious path to nuance and the clear communication of detail. And it may, of course, be the case that the person doing the shouting and shrieking is simply a bully and accustomed to getting their own way by means of decibels and arm-flailing.
However, Ms Leventry is much too busy to engage with such humdrum possibilities. Instead, we get a hint of the regard in which she holds her peers and employers:
I recently provided a training for K- through third grade teachers about how to make their classrooms more inclusive for transgender and gender nonconforming kids. It was LGBTQIA+ allyship 101. The principal asked me not to swear during the training because some of the elementary school teachers don’t like swearing. This wasn’t a threat; it was an admission that some of her staff would be policing my words and then shutting down if they became offended when I didn’t spoon-feed them G-rated language and in a way that didn’t disrupt their naïve view of the world… Instead of focusing on the content, they would only be able to focus on the tone or package in which the content was delivered.
A pretty good reason, one might think, to prioritise effective communication over any satisfaction to be had in unnerving strangers with incongruous coarseness and bellowed epithets. Assuming, that is, that what matters is the aforementioned content, not adolescent self-indulgence or displays of domination.
This is just one version of tone policing, and it was used to silence and derail the conversation away from the real topic at hand.
Again, readers may have their own views as to which party is needlessly derailing the conversation.
Inevitably, objections to being shouted at, and sworn at, are framed with great haste as a sign of complicity in oppression:
Tone policing happens because it’s too hard for some people to sit in discomfort, acknowledge mistakes, and move toward meaningful conversations and change. Instead of validating the message, tone policing uses thin and privileged excuses to avoid it altogether. Tone-policing is rooted in colonialism and white supremacy.
In short, then, when a suitably black or gay person shouts at you, you “need to be quiet and listen” – and by implication, you should promptly defer, however wrong or ridiculous, or nakedly opportunist, the shouting person may be. You must “validate” their rage, and any incoherence, with lots of silent nodding, before rolling submissively onto your back. Because, being members of a Designated Victim Group, even if irrelevant or based on nothing whatsoever, they matter, and clearly, you don’t. What with all that “privilege” you apparently have. And because reciprocal courtesies just ain’t woke. It’s the progressive pecking order. Know your place.
Update, via the comments:
The lovely Ms Leventry, whose pronouns, we learn, are they and them, has been mentioned here before. As when she boasted of encouraging her own small children to feel hostile and violent towards conservatives and Trump supporters, and to shout profanities at them, randomly, simply for being conservatives and Trump supporters. Because cultivating irrational hatred in children aged seven and nine is a way to combat bigotry, it seems. And she does this while conceding that her own Trump-supporting neighbours have, and I quote, “always been kind to us.” So, not a well woman, or an obvious moral guide.
RE: the Genghis Khan article.
There’s some real stupidity in that one.
Mare’s milk is known for inducing diarrhea, even in Europeans, due to the amount of sugar in it. There’s enough sugar in mare’s milk to allow it to ferment into an alcoholic beverage called kumis.
The reference to the “Therefore such an army of 100 000 warriors was more effective than for example the slow-moving Chinese army of 1 Million soldiers with an entourage of at least several hundred thousand.” is another bit of horseshit. The Romans managed to put together a combined military of ~400K soldiers at the height of their empire, which had much better internal communications (due to the Mediterranean sea) than China (even with the Chinese river network) *and* had performed various wars of conquest that provided riches via war booty. (Not *that* booty! Gold, silver, jewels, and slaves.)
There was never a case where all ~400K of Roman soldiers were in the same place. You couldn’t keep them fed nor keep them from being sick. The Chinese couldn’t do that either, movies from China notwithstanding.
Genghis gets much credit for people killed after he himself was already dirt napping. But the 1.2 million Urgenchies in one weekend is rather impressive. Not even the A-bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki come close. But what does Tamerlane have to do to get the respect he deserves? Sure, Mao killed maybe 60-100 million. But the ol’ Tamerhead took out 5% of the world population.
Of course, if the object is merely to scold people, especially white people, at every possible opportunity – to smear them as oppressors because they’d rather not be sworn at and shouted at by passing lunatics – then it starts to make a kind of sense.
The medium is the message: Ms Leventry hates the people she lectures so she feels justified in abusing them.
She’ll have a civil conversation with a waiter or a hairdresser or a colleague. But, based on her own writing, she is paid to be a professional abuser.
Yes, the article was silly, but the picture was neat.
Fair enough on that point.
There’s silly and there’s stupid; I have no doubt that I’ve provided in these comments a link to something that was superficially neat, but fundamentally stupid.
I guess I’m throwing the second or third stone. looks around nervously
(This is here to ensure that I haven’t screwed up the italics markup in the preview.)
She’ll have a civil conversation with a waiter or a hairdresser or a colleague. But, based on her own writing, she is paid to be a professional abuser.
Increasingly, these professional hectorers, behave as if the live group in front of them isn’t real. So they say whatever they want regardless of how insulting it may be. Several people here have provided examples of what happens when that audience pushes back and gets in the face of the hectorer. Needless to say they don’t like it and they write articles like the one featured here today. In some cases–like academia–they push administrators to inflict punishment.
I read a comment the other day (I forget where) where someone pointed out that the fill-in-the-blank studies grads had to find employment somewhere. It’s like the efficiency consulting grift that was so popular in the 80s and 90s. A way to employ newly minted grads who were otherwise unemployable.
“their naive view of the world”
*snort*
“She says she’s an anti-bullying activist but it sounds like she enjoys bullying people.”
It would seem that “anti-bullying” is not unlike “anti-racism” in that respect.
“Similarly in the 70’s and 80’s with “provocative”. Apparently I was the only one who thought that was stupid. Provoke what? To what end?”
“If it provokes a reaction, it must be doing something right”. I used to joke that you could provoke a reaction by poking people with a stick, but it doesn’t make it art. However, looking at some of the things we’ve seen over the years here, I wouldn’t put it past some of them these days.
Increasingly, these professional hectorers, behave as if the live group in front of them isn’t real.
This. Modern media makes it easy to turn other people into objects. Modern social media makes it easy to turn other people into various kinds of NPCs. So Ms Levantry spends all this time studying and, probably, on the internet turning masses of people into objects to be hated. Then she takes a job educating those objects. Without effort or applied intelligence it’s entirely likely she behaves this way because she has come to see those K-3 teachers as racist oppressors who deserve all the bad things she can dish out unless they remain prostrate before her lecturing.
I see T-shirts: “Gravity doesn’t give two shits for your fat acceptance”
We need to bring back face-slapping as an appropriate response to deliberately offensive behaviour.
Being stupid has to hurt. If it doesn’t hurt, people won’t stop being stupid.
Being stupid has to hurt. If it doesn’t hurt, people won’t stop being stupid.
When folks become uncomfortable, they focus on the tone of the words being said and label it as unprofessional, angry, off-putting, or inappropriate.
You left out “micro-aggression,” Ms. Leventry. The most popular form of “tone policing” is to accuse the speaker of committing a micro-aggression. Of course, no one will ever do that to you, because there’s nothing micro about shouting and swearing at people. It’s just aggression. Words like “bullying” and “intimidation” would also be appropriate. These are very useful tactics if you want “to silence and derail the conversation away from the real topic at hand.”
Back to Amber Leventry, I think she makes a valid point.
If you invite someone so obviously toxic to spout malignant nonsense at your staff, making a fuss about the risk of her saying “fuck” is missing the point by quite a distance.
It’s like inviting Ghengis Khan and his entourage around for tea, but fretting that the horses might make a mess of your drive.
@ Joe Ego: speaking of scolds, I see that the great scold, legend in her own mind and famous epidemiologist Greta Thunberg has instructed the world that it is ‘”unethical” that young people at low-risk from COVID in rich nations are being vaccinated before health care workers in low-income countries.
“The only morally right thing to do is to prioritize the people who are the most vulnerable, no matter whether they live in a high-income country or a low-income country.”‘
I disagree: if the first world countries which have the ability to produce vaccines don’t take care of their own and thus become dysfunctional, then where will third world countries get support, whether funding or vaccines?
The most popular form of “tone policing” is to accuse the speaker of committing a micro-aggression.
That.
if the first world countries which have the ability to produce vaccines don’t take care of their own and thus become dysfunctional,then where will third world countries get support, whether funding or vaccines?
Exactly. Just like the flight attendants tell you to put on your own air mask first before helping anybody else during an emergency.
She says she’s an anti-bullying activist but it sounds like she enjoys bullying people.
Ms Leventry, lest we forget, is someone who boasts of encouraging her own small children to feel hostile and violent towards conservatives and Trump supporters, and to shout profanities at them, randomly, simply for being conservatives and Trump supporters. Because cultivating irrational hatred in children aged seven and nine is the way to combat bigotry, apparently.
And she does this while conceding that her own Trump-supporting neighbours have, and I quote, “always been kind to us.”
So, not a well woman, or an obvious moral guide.
A headline in The Age newspaper in Melbourne, Aust. [progressive!!!] suggests that if the outcome of jury deliberations in the Derek Chauvin case is anything less than guilty of murder, there will be a nation wide BBQ [‘America will go up in flames’] and, no doubt, a free ‘shopping spree’ [also known as looting] for all interested in availing themselves of goods ‘on offer’ in any store anywhere in the country. [I do hope store owners are boarding up their windows and even stripping their shelves of wide-screen TVs and fancy running shoes and putting them in safe storage.]
If I was living in any Democrat controlled city I would be stocking up on food and ammunition so I didn’t have to leave the house for the duration of the riots that people like Maxine Waters are promoting. [I know that defending one’s property with firearms upsets certain inner-city ‘citizens’ who consider looting their Right, but I support the A-rabs and the Koreans in standing armed guard over their properties to discourage looters.]
also known as looting
Remember comrade it is now known as material liberation
And because reciprocal courtesies just ain’t woke. It’s the progressive pecking order. Know your place.
That.
That.
Ms Leventry’s ideological peers are quite explicit on this point. Indeed, they’re self-satisfied and prideful, and seem astonished, outraged, when mere mortals object or point out basic errors in their assumptions.
It’s the egalitarian way.
[I do hope store owners are boarding up their windows…]
Yes, they are. And Governor Pritzker has activated the Illinois National Guard.
Oh damn. I screwed up my links again, David. Sorry about that. No more commenting before fully awake!
[ spends the rest of the day nervously looking over shoulder for the henchlesbians ]
I disagree: if the first world countries which have the ability to produce vaccines don’t take care of their own and thus become dysfunctional, then where will third world countries get support, whether funding or vaccines?
On the one hand, yes. On the other hand first world countries should be dealing with this situation more intelligently, leading to plenty of capacity for foreigners, and not selling experimental vaccines so hard that young people would be clamoring for them. But after all no masks then lockdowns then required masks then golly-gee-two-masks-are-a-great-idea then even harder lockdowns — I’m just going to roll my eyes at the whole thing while keeping my family as unaffected as possible.
And somewhere on a third hand that doesn’t exist and, by extension, doesn’t matter at all are my concerns about Greta’s third world countries. The businesses and governments involved will all follow their plans to make as much money and grab as much power as possible and pay about as much attention to some FAS scandi activist as me.
And somewhere on a third hand that doesn’t exist…
Your Fyunch(click) looks significantly at its third hand, raises eyebrow, and looks significantly at you.